March 28, 2017, 04:33:05 AM

Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Did the ancients know this and Is that why we are all named as sinners?

I think nature created the potential for evil in each of us because without that potential we would not have the ability to make a free choice between good and evil or evolve to find the fittest human.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

From this view, we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest. To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct.

Do you see this conundrum of us having to do evil? If you do, should God punish us for doing what we must do so as not to go extinct?

I do not see God as justified in punishing us and that is why Gnostic Christians like me are Universalists.

I see us all as not requiring salvation. God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive.

Quoting this post because this is the one that gets you perma banned. For telling another poster that they've sold their soul to satan which is a deliberate and malicious attempt to wound, and for apparently telling a mod that that there is some sort of 'internet law' that means they can't enforce rules. After all your time on this forum in the past flooding it with page after page after page of new threads, for using it as your personal pulpit, for being intentionally rude to other posters who legitimately have tried to engage you, and for complaining that rules shouldn't be applied to you - not just this time but the last time you darkened the door of this site. You're gone.

But would that actually result in him doing less evil? It's quite possible that he would simply put the same time and effort into other forms of evil, which may even be worse. Perhaps his shitposting is the lesser of two or more evils.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

And how do you think cooperation arose? A pretty good [but not perfect] "strategy" for biological fitness is to cooperate, especially [but not exclusively] with kin. Competition thus often gave rise to cooperation, and we see it today and in the past by the number of species that are multicellular, or that live in communities with various degrees of integration and specialisation.

The other main way cooperation arises is via the Black Queen phenomenon, which roughly means "Why waste time buying a lawn mower when you can borrow you neighbour's?"

And what is "good" and "evil" anyway. It is always contextual.

Believer in High Powers, and naturally, logarithms.Pikkiwoki is the one true god.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

And how do you think cooperation arose? A pretty good [but not perfect] "strategy" for biological fitness is to cooperate, especially [but not exclusively] with kin. Competition thus often gave rise to cooperation, and we see it today and in the past by the number of species that are multicellular, or that live in communities with various degrees of integration and specialisation.

The other main way cooperation arises is via the Black Queen phenomenon, which roughly means "Why waste time buying a lawn mower when you can borrow you neighbour's?"

And what is "good" and "evil" anyway. It is always contextual.

It is and decided on by those competing or cooperating.

I recognize that there are symbiotic relationships and we can see the cooperation but cannot know if it came out of competition.

Cooperation for the weakest animal on the planet, mankind, is our default position at birth and is better for survival, as when born and babies, we are too weak to compete.

I would then guess that cooperation in us arose because that is the only viable option for us when young.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

And how do you think cooperation arose? A pretty good [but not perfect] "strategy" for biological fitness is to cooperate, especially [but not exclusively] with kin. Competition thus often gave rise to cooperation, and we see it today and in the past by the number of species that are multicellular, or that live in communities with various degrees of integration and specialisation.

The other main way cooperation arises is via the Black Queen phenomenon, which roughly means "Why waste time buying a lawn mower when you can borrow you neighbour's?"

And what is "good" and "evil" anyway. It is always contextual.

It is and decided on by those competing or cooperating.

I recognize that there are symbiotic relationships and we can see the cooperation but cannot know if it came out of competition.

Cooperation for the weakest animal on the planet, mankind, is our default position at birth and is better for survival, as when born and babies, we are too weak to compete.

I would then guess that cooperation in us arose because that is the only viable option for us when young.

You cannot bite when you do not have teeth.

RegardsDL

Yes, of course we can know that cooperation was born of competition. One way you can escape being eaten is to be bigger than your predator. Can a cat swallow an elephant? But Big Cats, working together, have a better chance. So those lions that happened to cooperate got more kills, and with more food, they were able to produce more offspring.

Working alone sometimes pays dividends, in specific circumstances. A Cheetah for example. But cheetahs are in decline. Despite the presence of prides of lions, cheetahs carved out a niche for themselves, until another social animal arose-human beings.

And you can take this argument back to the first cells- the prokaryotic world. Mutations that helped cells aggregate and signal each other allowed colonies or biofilms to form. But there are limits to bacterial colonies. Their structure/form does not lend itself to forming complex colonies with specialisations.

Eucaryotes solved this problem by having two cells lines: the soma [the colony] and the gametes. Putting the bulk of selection on the germ line allowed the complex origami of multi-cellular development to occur.

This made the somatic cells mortal. They no longer personally reproduced by fission, but their genes were passed on by the germ line.

Believer in High Powers, and naturally, logarithms.Pikkiwoki is the one true god.

Did the ancients know this and Is that why we are all named as sinners?

I think nature created the potential for evil in each of us because without that potential we would not have the ability to make a free choice between good and evil or evolve to find the fittest human.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

From this view, we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest. To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct.

Do you see this conundrum of us having to do evil? If you do, should God punish us for doing what we must do so as not to go extinct?

I do not see God as justified in punishing us and that is why Gnostic Christians like me are Universalists.

I see us all as not requiring salvation. God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

And how do you think cooperation arose? A pretty good [but not perfect] "strategy" for biological fitness is to cooperate, especially [but not exclusively] with kin. Competition thus often gave rise to cooperation, and we see it today and in the past by the number of species that are multicellular, or that live in communities with various degrees of integration and specialisation.

The other main way cooperation arises is via the Black Queen phenomenon, which roughly means "Why waste time buying a lawn mower when you can borrow you neighbour's?"

And what is "good" and "evil" anyway. It is always contextual.

It is and decided on by those competing or cooperating.

I recognize that there are symbiotic relationships and we can see the cooperation but cannot know if it came out of competition.

Cooperation for the weakest animal on the planet, mankind, is our default position at birth and is better for survival, as when born and babies, we are too weak to compete.

I would then guess that cooperation in us arose because that is the only viable option for us when young.

You cannot bite when you do not have teeth.

RegardsDL

Yes, of course we can know that cooperation was born of competition. One way you can escape being eaten is to be bigger than your predator. Can a cat swallow an elephant? But Big Cats, working together, have a better chance. So those lions that happened to cooperate got more kills, and with more food, they were able to produce more offspring.

Working alone sometimes pays dividends, in specific circumstances. A Cheetah for example. But cheetahs are in decline. Despite the presence of prides of lions, cheetahs carved out a niche for themselves, until another social animal arose-human beings.

And you can take this argument back to the first cells- the prokaryotic world. Mutations that helped cells aggregate and signal each other allowed colonies or biofilms to form. But there are limits to bacterial colonies. Their structure/form does not lend itself to forming complex colonies with specialisations.

Eucaryotes solved this problem by having two cells lines: the soma [the colony] and the gametes. Putting the bulk of selection on the germ line allowed the complex origami of multi-cellular development to occur.

This made the somatic cells mortal. They no longer personally reproduced by fission, but their genes were passed on by the germ line.